0:00:05 > 0:00:09Insurance fraud has reached epidemic levels in the UK.
0:00:09 > 0:00:14It's costing us more than £1.3 billion every year -
0:00:14 > 0:00:17that's almost 3.6 million every day.
0:00:19 > 0:00:23Deliberate crashes, bogus personal injuries,
0:00:23 > 0:00:24even phantom pets.
0:00:25 > 0:00:29The fraudsters are risking more and more to make a quick killing,
0:00:29 > 0:00:34and every year it's adding around £50 to your insurance bill.
0:00:34 > 0:00:36But insurers are fighting back -
0:00:36 > 0:00:39exposing just under 15 fake claims every hour.
0:00:39 > 0:00:42Armed with covert surveillance systems...
0:00:42 > 0:00:44That's the subject out the vehicle.
0:00:44 > 0:00:46..sophisticated data analysis techniques...
0:00:48 > 0:00:51- Police!- ..and a number of highly skilled police units...
0:00:51 > 0:00:53Police, stand back! Stay where you are!
0:00:53 > 0:00:55..they're catching the criminals red-handed.
0:00:55 > 0:00:57Just don't lie to us.
0:00:57 > 0:00:59All those conmen, scammers
0:00:59 > 0:01:02and cheats on the fiddle are now caught in the act...
0:01:02 > 0:01:04and claimed and shamed.
0:01:10 > 0:01:15Today, a woman claiming she can't work stretches the truth
0:01:15 > 0:01:16as well as her body.
0:01:16 > 0:01:19I think I might have struggled to have done
0:01:19 > 0:01:21some of the exercises that she did.
0:01:22 > 0:01:25A doctor's outrageous holiday scam is prescribed
0:01:25 > 0:01:27a double dose of justice.
0:01:27 > 0:01:31The General Medical Council took a very dim view of it,
0:01:31 > 0:01:35and as a result of their proceedings, Sharma was struck off.
0:01:35 > 0:01:38And a conman forges insurance certificates
0:01:38 > 0:01:41to keep his delivery vans working.
0:01:41 > 0:01:44No vehicle on the road put there by Randall was insured.
0:01:44 > 0:01:46There was no cover for anybody.
0:01:46 > 0:01:48The implications were vast.
0:01:53 > 0:01:54If you've ever been hurt at work,
0:01:54 > 0:01:57you'll know the prospect of losing your livelihood
0:01:57 > 0:01:59can be a frightening thing.
0:01:59 > 0:02:01Most of us will do anything to get healthy again
0:02:01 > 0:02:03and get back to the day job,
0:02:03 > 0:02:05but there are those who see this as a chance
0:02:05 > 0:02:07to take an extended holiday,
0:02:07 > 0:02:10often fabricating or exaggerating their condition
0:02:10 > 0:02:14in the false belief that insurers will continue to pay out.
0:02:17 > 0:02:21It's estimated that we spend around a third of our lives working.
0:02:21 > 0:02:24Obviously, some jobs are more hazardous than others,
0:02:24 > 0:02:28but the law requires all employers to have insurance.
0:02:30 > 0:02:33John Beadle is RSA's UK counter fraud manager.
0:02:33 > 0:02:35He was passed one claim to review
0:02:35 > 0:02:39involving a common but debilitating workplace injury.
0:02:40 > 0:02:44This lady worked for a top-end clothing retailer
0:02:44 > 0:02:48and she claimed that she'd had two accidents at work.
0:02:48 > 0:02:51The first where she lifted a heavy box
0:02:51 > 0:02:55and the second where she had to retrieve something
0:02:55 > 0:02:57in a confined space.
0:02:57 > 0:03:00She was claiming in excess of £100,000.
0:03:01 > 0:03:06A huge claim, but her alleged injuries were significant.
0:03:06 > 0:03:09She had, or developed, frozen shoulder,
0:03:09 > 0:03:13she also had an arthroscopy,
0:03:13 > 0:03:18and her medical expert found that she only had 10% of movement
0:03:18 > 0:03:20in her left shoulder,
0:03:20 > 0:03:24which obviously would impact the way that she could live her life.
0:03:24 > 0:03:28And make the simplest of daily tasks a real challenge.
0:03:29 > 0:03:30To process the claim quickly,
0:03:30 > 0:03:33John's team carried out some routine checks.
0:03:35 > 0:03:38But on examining her medical records,
0:03:38 > 0:03:41we found that, indeed, just before this accident,
0:03:41 > 0:03:44she had had problems with her left shoulder.
0:03:44 > 0:03:48Which suggested although her recent mishap may have worsened
0:03:48 > 0:03:51the existing injury, it wasn't the cause.
0:03:51 > 0:03:54That would dramatically effect the claim.
0:03:54 > 0:03:59In normal circumstances, you would expect people to tell you the truth,
0:03:59 > 0:04:02and clearly this was the first evidence that we'd had
0:04:02 > 0:04:06that this lady wasn't being completely forthright with us
0:04:06 > 0:04:09and there was a pre-existing injury.
0:04:09 > 0:04:13Bearing in mind she was claiming in excess of £100,000,
0:04:13 > 0:04:16this was a key fact.
0:04:16 > 0:04:18If there was a pre-existing injury,
0:04:18 > 0:04:20it would have some impact on
0:04:20 > 0:04:23the level of compensation that might be considered,
0:04:23 > 0:04:28accepting that the injuries at work were in fact genuine.
0:04:28 > 0:04:31And this was something John was very keen to investigate.
0:04:31 > 0:04:34So having had our suspicion aroused,
0:04:34 > 0:04:38we thought we would get some surveillance evidence of the lady.
0:04:38 > 0:04:42This would either confirm or indeed deny
0:04:42 > 0:04:45whether or not she did have an incapacitating injury.
0:04:45 > 0:04:49And this period of surveillance would prove very worthwhile.
0:04:51 > 0:04:56Yeah, somebody who has only got 10% of their movement,
0:04:56 > 0:05:00you would expect to see very difficult
0:05:00 > 0:05:02going about their normal lives -
0:05:02 > 0:05:08not able to drive or to carry anything.
0:05:08 > 0:05:11Yeah, that is what you would expect,
0:05:11 > 0:05:13but the reality was very different.
0:05:13 > 0:05:19The surveillance showed that she appeared to be mobile
0:05:19 > 0:05:22and walking quite freely
0:05:22 > 0:05:26and using her arms in a normal fashion.
0:05:26 > 0:05:29And the claimant's next act would show she was all about the gain
0:05:29 > 0:05:32and there didn't seem to be too much pain.
0:05:32 > 0:05:36You can imagine our absolute amazement
0:05:36 > 0:05:40when the surveillance people actually obtained
0:05:40 > 0:05:42footage of her in a gym,
0:05:42 > 0:05:46where she was doing a full body pump exercise,
0:05:46 > 0:05:53which included lifting weights above her head on a barbell.
0:05:53 > 0:05:57OK, let's see that supposedly injured shoulder in action
0:05:57 > 0:05:58one more time.
0:06:01 > 0:06:02It's impressive.
0:06:02 > 0:06:04I hope she stretched -
0:06:04 > 0:06:06wouldn't want to pick up a genuine injury.
0:06:06 > 0:06:11Other exercises which were extremely vexing on those shoulders
0:06:11 > 0:06:13and, in fact, I think I might have struggled
0:06:13 > 0:06:15to have done some of the exercises that she did.
0:06:17 > 0:06:21So, she was fit enough to work out, but not actually work.
0:06:21 > 0:06:25And it seemed this claimant was in tip-top condition.
0:06:25 > 0:06:30It did show her living a completely normal life
0:06:30 > 0:06:34with no apparent restrictions in her movement whatsoever -
0:06:34 > 0:06:37she was driving as though it was completely normal.
0:06:37 > 0:06:41This type of scam never gets any easier to stomach.
0:06:41 > 0:06:45It is very frustrating when you see some of this type of footage,
0:06:45 > 0:06:51where it is such a blatant and obvious lie
0:06:51 > 0:06:55that there is no incapacity at all.
0:06:55 > 0:06:59As the claimant's head, shoulders, knees, and toes had been shown
0:06:59 > 0:07:01to be working just fine,
0:07:01 > 0:07:03her case was reassessed.
0:07:04 > 0:07:07We reached a point in our investigation
0:07:07 > 0:07:09where we clearly had the surveillance footage
0:07:09 > 0:07:16and we also sought the advice of another medical expert,
0:07:16 > 0:07:18who, having viewed the surveillance evidence,
0:07:18 > 0:07:20found that there was no incapacity at all.
0:07:20 > 0:07:26And we served this onto the defence solicitors
0:07:26 > 0:07:31and made them a very small offer in final settlement of the claim.
0:07:31 > 0:07:35The claimant was looking for a pay-out of over £100,000.
0:07:35 > 0:07:39Instead, she was offered a fraction of that amount,
0:07:39 > 0:07:42and odds were that she wouldn't even get that.
0:07:42 > 0:07:46We made an application to the court
0:07:46 > 0:07:51that this should be treated as a case of fundamental dishonesty.
0:07:51 > 0:07:53But it's unlikely that she will get any of that money
0:07:53 > 0:07:57because they'll be required to pay our costs in this case.
0:07:57 > 0:08:00And if the claimant thought she'd had an opportunity
0:08:00 > 0:08:01to take early retirement,
0:08:01 > 0:08:04she was sorely mistaken.
0:08:04 > 0:08:09Insurers aren't stupid and this is a really good demonstration
0:08:09 > 0:08:13of the level of scrutiny that you will be put to
0:08:13 > 0:08:16if we have suspicions about your claim.
0:08:22 > 0:08:26Later, a claimant who throws himself down some stairs
0:08:26 > 0:08:29looking for a pay-out is tripped up.
0:08:29 > 0:08:31The claimant approaches the first step,
0:08:31 > 0:08:33appears to look to the left
0:08:33 > 0:08:37and purposefully places his left foot onto a substance,
0:08:37 > 0:08:40grabs onto the handrail and falls down the stairs.
0:08:40 > 0:08:43And an attempt to deceive insurers
0:08:43 > 0:08:46with a fake helicopter rescue crash lands.
0:08:46 > 0:08:49After our agents contacted the air traffic control tower,
0:08:49 > 0:08:52they realised that no flights had taken off that day.
0:08:56 > 0:08:59Fraudsters exist in all walks of life,
0:08:59 > 0:09:01often where you'd least expect.
0:09:01 > 0:09:03But one thing they all have in common
0:09:03 > 0:09:06is that their deception starts with a lie.
0:09:06 > 0:09:08It's the length scammers are willing to go to
0:09:08 > 0:09:10in order to commit fraud that separates them.
0:09:10 > 0:09:14While some insurance cheats will chicken out and hold their hands up,
0:09:14 > 0:09:17there are others who will quite frankly do or say anything
0:09:17 > 0:09:20to collect the cash.
0:09:20 > 0:09:24Protecting yourself with travel insurance is just good common sense,
0:09:24 > 0:09:27wherever you're spending your summer holidays.
0:09:27 > 0:09:29Insurers Aviva offer policies
0:09:29 > 0:09:33to cover most eventualities when abroad.
0:09:33 > 0:09:35Well, apart from those made up.
0:09:37 > 0:09:40Their head of fraud, Tom Gardiner, was presented with multiple claims
0:09:40 > 0:09:45from one customer who'd reportedly suffered some horrific misfortune.
0:09:46 > 0:09:50In 2012, Dr Sharma made two travel insurance claims.
0:09:50 > 0:09:54The first was for missing a flight
0:09:54 > 0:09:56from India to the UK,
0:09:56 > 0:09:58which he said was as a result of a road traffic accident.
0:09:58 > 0:10:04Dr Narendra Sharma claimed to have spent £600 on replacement flights,
0:10:04 > 0:10:06but the true cost of this failed airport run
0:10:06 > 0:10:09was reported to the call handler.
0:10:28 > 0:10:30A tragic accident.
0:10:31 > 0:10:33But being a trusted GP here in the UK,
0:10:33 > 0:10:37Dr Sharma understood the importance of getting the paperwork in order,
0:10:37 > 0:10:39despite the awful circumstances.
0:10:41 > 0:10:43In support of Sharma's first claim for the missed flight,
0:10:43 > 0:10:45he had presented two documents.
0:10:45 > 0:10:47One was a death certificate,
0:10:47 > 0:10:52and also a recovery invoice following the damage to his car.
0:10:52 > 0:10:56Aviva used their on-the-ground investigators to validate the claim,
0:10:56 > 0:10:59which threw up a shocking revelation.
0:10:59 > 0:11:01What was revealed quite quickly
0:11:01 > 0:11:04from our local agent's enquiries in India
0:11:04 > 0:11:09was that the recovery company simply didn't exist,
0:11:09 > 0:11:14the officials had confirmed that the death certificate was entirely bogus
0:11:14 > 0:11:16and also that the police had no record
0:11:16 > 0:11:18of attending a road traffic accident,
0:11:18 > 0:11:21let alone a fatal road traffic accident.
0:11:21 > 0:11:25So, with no record of the accident or the fatality,
0:11:25 > 0:11:28the evidence suggested Dr Sharma had lied
0:11:28 > 0:11:31so he could make a false insurance claim.
0:11:31 > 0:11:33It was quite clear that what on the face of it
0:11:33 > 0:11:37was a tragic incident resulting in a genuine claim
0:11:37 > 0:11:39was clearly anything but that.
0:11:39 > 0:11:41OK, so far, we've established
0:11:41 > 0:11:44that the good Dr Sharma had faked his mother-in-law's death
0:11:44 > 0:11:46in a fictitious road accident
0:11:46 > 0:11:48and supplied forged documents
0:11:48 > 0:11:51just so he could make a fraudulent travel insurance claim
0:11:51 > 0:11:52for missed flights.
0:11:52 > 0:11:54If that wasn't extraordinary enough,
0:11:54 > 0:11:57remember the second insurance claim?
0:11:57 > 0:12:01Dr Sharma telephoned Aviva to notify his second claim.
0:12:01 > 0:12:06That was for a cancellation of a holiday in Spain,
0:12:06 > 0:12:08which he attributed to a family illness.
0:12:08 > 0:12:12And that was for accommodation costs of a approximately £59.
0:12:13 > 0:12:18And the reported illness went well beyond a sudden bout of flu.
0:12:18 > 0:12:21Dr Sharma explained the family member's diagnosis
0:12:21 > 0:12:23to the call handler.
0:12:38 > 0:12:41Sympathetic to the alleged circumstance,
0:12:41 > 0:12:44the information is taken at face value.
0:12:44 > 0:12:47I think suspicions were raised in the original telephone call.
0:12:47 > 0:12:52Sharma seemed to change his story quite quickly
0:12:52 > 0:13:00and his accommodation costs went from £59 to then include flights.
0:13:00 > 0:13:04And when Dr Sharma thinks he could potentially end up with nothing,
0:13:04 > 0:13:06he ups the ante.
0:13:27 > 0:13:30So, Dr Sharma was now claiming in excess of £600
0:13:30 > 0:13:32for cancelled flights,
0:13:32 > 0:13:35but by the time supporting documents were received,
0:13:35 > 0:13:38this figure had changed a little.
0:13:38 > 0:13:40When we then received the invoices,
0:13:40 > 0:13:44the accommodation costs weren't £59, there were £959
0:13:44 > 0:13:47and the flights were in excess of £1,000.
0:13:47 > 0:13:49Quite the jump.
0:13:49 > 0:13:51The first thing Tom's team did
0:13:51 > 0:13:53was to attempt to validate Sharma's paperwork,
0:13:53 > 0:13:57but it wasn't exactly what this doctor had ordered.
0:13:57 > 0:14:03Neither the airline or the holiday company could support or recognise
0:14:03 > 0:14:07the two invoices that Sharma had presented.
0:14:07 > 0:14:12Damning evidence that this was also a completely fabricated claim.
0:14:12 > 0:14:17And it appeared that the on-call doctor had decided to go off-duty.
0:14:17 > 0:14:19Sharma was presented with this evidence -
0:14:19 > 0:14:22he no longer communicated with us.
0:14:22 > 0:14:25I suspect that he realised, then, that the game was up
0:14:25 > 0:14:29and rather hoped that that would be an end to the matter.
0:14:29 > 0:14:31Given the body of proof Tom had,
0:14:31 > 0:14:34Dr Sharma was hoping in vain.
0:14:34 > 0:14:36It was clear that on both claims
0:14:36 > 0:14:39fraudulent invoices had been submitted,
0:14:39 > 0:14:42so both claims were repudiated.
0:14:42 > 0:14:46Also put together our evidence and reported the matter to the police.
0:14:48 > 0:14:51Dr Sharma had been willing to fake the death of his mother-in-law,
0:14:51 > 0:14:52forge her death certificate,
0:14:52 > 0:14:54and tell the most terrible lies
0:14:54 > 0:14:57in a sickening attempt to fraudulently claim
0:14:57 > 0:14:59on his travel insurance.
0:15:00 > 0:15:05But the game was up and he was about to feel the full weight of the law.
0:15:05 > 0:15:07As a result of the police taking on the case,
0:15:07 > 0:15:10Dr Sharma was prosecuted and pleaded guilty
0:15:10 > 0:15:12and he received six months' community service.
0:15:14 > 0:15:16A good result for Tom and the team at Aviva,
0:15:16 > 0:15:20but the consequences were far from over for Dr Sharma.
0:15:20 > 0:15:24Following the prosecution, we were deeply concerned
0:15:24 > 0:15:28about Sharma's behaviour and the position he held,
0:15:28 > 0:15:32so we brought that to the attention of the General Medical Council as well.
0:15:32 > 0:15:34As you might have guessed,
0:15:34 > 0:15:37they weren't exactly impressed by his conduct.
0:15:37 > 0:15:40The General Medical Council took a very dim view of it
0:15:40 > 0:15:45and as a result of their proceedings, Sharma was struck off.
0:15:46 > 0:15:49So from respected pillar of the community,
0:15:49 > 0:15:53to disgraced insurance cheat with a community service order.
0:15:53 > 0:15:57He had it all but threw it away with his attempted fraud.
0:15:59 > 0:16:01I think what's difficult to rationalise
0:16:01 > 0:16:03is that someone in Dr Sharma's position
0:16:03 > 0:16:06was prepared to go to such lengths.
0:16:07 > 0:16:10This case perfectly demonstrates insurers' ability
0:16:10 > 0:16:14to identify and stop fraud.
0:16:16 > 0:16:19I think what this case shows is firstly that insurance fraud
0:16:19 > 0:16:22isn't just a motor insurance problem.
0:16:22 > 0:16:27And, secondly, that fraudsters do come from all walks of life.
0:16:32 > 0:16:35It is a well-known fact that when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle,
0:16:35 > 0:16:38insurance is compulsory.
0:16:38 > 0:16:41However, there are fraudsters who choose to ignore this fact,
0:16:41 > 0:16:44with some scammers letting unsuspected drivers belt up
0:16:44 > 0:16:47knowing full well they're not covered.
0:16:47 > 0:16:50But if you have an accident in an uninsured vehicle,
0:16:50 > 0:16:54then you'll be left to carry the can for all costs incurred.
0:16:55 > 0:16:59With close to 30 million cars on UK roads,
0:16:59 > 0:17:02there's always a risk of being involved in an accident.
0:17:03 > 0:17:06Mihir Pandya is a fraud manager for Allianz
0:17:06 > 0:17:11and knows a thing or two about dealing with bogus insurance claims.
0:17:11 > 0:17:14He received one call regarding a supposed customer of theirs.
0:17:15 > 0:17:20This case first came to light when Motor Insurers' Bureau contacted us.
0:17:20 > 0:17:24And they were dealing with a claim where an individual
0:17:24 > 0:17:30had been hit in their car by another individual
0:17:30 > 0:17:32who they believe was uninsured.
0:17:32 > 0:17:35But when the MIB contacted this person,
0:17:35 > 0:17:39they presented them with a certificate of insurance,
0:17:39 > 0:17:42which was purporting to be from Allianz Insurance.
0:17:42 > 0:17:45The Motor Insurers' Bureau provide compensation to victims
0:17:45 > 0:17:48involved in accidents with uninsured drivers.
0:17:48 > 0:17:51The call was an everyday occurrence
0:17:51 > 0:17:53but the policy was far from ordinary.
0:17:55 > 0:17:57We looked at the insurance certificate,
0:17:57 > 0:17:59we checked our systems,
0:17:59 > 0:18:02and we couldn't find any trace of this policyholder.
0:18:02 > 0:18:07He was insured by Allianz Insurance a couple of years before
0:18:07 > 0:18:09but not at the time when the MIB contacted us.
0:18:11 > 0:18:13Concerned by the lack of a valid policy,
0:18:13 > 0:18:16Allianz looked into the alleged customer's records.
0:18:16 > 0:18:21Mark Randall was a company director of two courier companies,
0:18:21 > 0:18:23based in the West Midlands.
0:18:23 > 0:18:25They would do a lot of work for larger courier companies
0:18:25 > 0:18:27and service their postcodes.
0:18:28 > 0:18:31This type of business would require fleet and freight
0:18:31 > 0:18:33liability insurance for multiple vehicles.
0:18:33 > 0:18:37But examining the paperwork revealed an alarming truth.
0:18:38 > 0:18:43We did our own checks and we couldn't find any suggestion
0:18:43 > 0:18:45that Mr Randall was still insured with Allianz.
0:18:45 > 0:18:50So we looked at the document and very quickly became evident
0:18:50 > 0:18:52that the document was forged.
0:18:53 > 0:18:58Randall was operating illegally and it was time to pass the case over
0:18:58 > 0:19:01to the boys in blue at the City of London Police's
0:19:01 > 0:19:03insurance fraud enforcement department.
0:19:07 > 0:19:10Simon Styles is Ifed's financial investigator
0:19:10 > 0:19:12and was part of the team that took on the case.
0:19:14 > 0:19:16Allianz's enquiries had already established
0:19:16 > 0:19:19that Randall was running an entire fleet of commercial vehicles
0:19:19 > 0:19:22without insurance, using forged policies.
0:19:23 > 0:19:28And putting all of his unknowing workforce at risk.
0:19:28 > 0:19:32And the terrifying consequences for every single employee on the payroll
0:19:32 > 0:19:34were all too clear to Simon.
0:19:34 > 0:19:39No driver and no vehicle on the road put there by Randall was insured.
0:19:39 > 0:19:43There was no cover for anybody if they hit anybody or injured anybody.
0:19:43 > 0:19:47The implications were vast.
0:19:47 > 0:19:51And for that reason, Ifed didn't hesitate to take the next step.
0:19:51 > 0:19:54From the stage that we had received
0:19:54 > 0:19:56a referral from Allianz,
0:19:56 > 0:19:59we confirmed what had already been told to us,
0:19:59 > 0:20:02that the certificates that had been provided were false.
0:20:02 > 0:20:05And then we decided to knock on the door of Mark Randall.
0:20:06 > 0:20:08Detectives paid Randall a visit.
0:20:08 > 0:20:10They were looking for any evidence to prove
0:20:10 > 0:20:14he had been faking certificates and supplying them to insurers.
0:20:14 > 0:20:16When you go through the door of a suspect
0:20:16 > 0:20:18in possession of a search warrant,
0:20:18 > 0:20:19you don't know what you're going to find.
0:20:19 > 0:20:23And on this occasion, we found evidence of another courier company
0:20:23 > 0:20:25that we didn't know anything about.
0:20:25 > 0:20:28Of course, alarm bells were ringing and rightly so.
0:20:29 > 0:20:31What was coming through loud and clear
0:20:31 > 0:20:33was that Randall was running the same insurance scam
0:20:33 > 0:20:36with a second company.
0:20:36 > 0:20:40It's unusual to have two companies set up by the same person
0:20:40 > 0:20:42doing the same thing.
0:20:42 > 0:20:45And if in the first instance they were falsifying documents
0:20:45 > 0:20:50to get hold of the contract, ie, providing false insurance,
0:20:50 > 0:20:52they were very much likely to have done it a second time.
0:20:52 > 0:20:54And we were proved right.
0:20:54 > 0:20:57The faked certificates weren't just used to keep his vans on the road
0:20:57 > 0:21:02at a reduced cost, they were keeping his business afloat.
0:21:02 > 0:21:04Mark Randall had a contract with UPS
0:21:04 > 0:21:08and had been working with them legitimately for a couple of years.
0:21:08 > 0:21:10He ran into difficulties
0:21:10 > 0:21:15and was not able to pay the premiums on his insurance.
0:21:15 > 0:21:18And therefore, would he have notified UPS,
0:21:18 > 0:21:21that contract would have been cancelled.
0:21:21 > 0:21:24Randall's scam had begun as a desperate attempt
0:21:24 > 0:21:26to save his failing business,
0:21:26 > 0:21:30but having got away with it this long, he continued to push his luck.
0:21:30 > 0:21:32Under the guise of the second company,
0:21:32 > 0:21:35he secured another lucrative delivery contract
0:21:35 > 0:21:37from an international distributor.
0:21:37 > 0:21:41Once again, supplying fabricated insurance documents.
0:21:41 > 0:21:43The contract was with Yodel.
0:21:43 > 0:21:47Randall had to provide two certificates of insurance.
0:21:47 > 0:21:51Both of those were false and had Yodel known about it,
0:21:51 > 0:21:54they wouldn't have employed him and no contract would have been agreed.
0:21:54 > 0:21:57Striking this deal would keep the revenue rolling in
0:21:57 > 0:21:59for quite some time.
0:21:59 > 0:22:03From the date that he first produced a fraudulent insurance cover,
0:22:03 > 0:22:07to the date of the accident when it all came to light,
0:22:07 > 0:22:10he made just over £750,000.
0:22:10 > 0:22:15His fleet of delivery vehicles may have brought in £750,000,
0:22:15 > 0:22:18however, these vans should never have been on the road
0:22:18 > 0:22:19in the first place.
0:22:21 > 0:22:24To fulfil the contract, he needed insurance cover.
0:22:24 > 0:22:26He may well say that it went on legitimate wages
0:22:26 > 0:22:28and hire of the vehicles,
0:22:28 > 0:22:31but he wouldn't have had that money if he'd told them
0:22:31 > 0:22:33that the certificates were false.
0:22:33 > 0:22:37And Simon remains certain that what started as a desperate attempt
0:22:37 > 0:22:40to save his business soon turned into pure greed.
0:22:41 > 0:22:45Whether Randall knew or not what the implications were,
0:22:45 > 0:22:47he set out to make money.
0:22:47 > 0:22:50He didn't pay for any of these policies.
0:22:50 > 0:22:52Ultimately, Randall's disregard for the law
0:22:52 > 0:22:54and willingness to put his own employees at risk
0:22:54 > 0:22:57in uninsured vehicles wouldn't pay off.
0:22:57 > 0:23:00When he was interviewed...
0:23:00 > 0:23:01showed remorse.
0:23:01 > 0:23:03He understood what had caught up with him.
0:23:03 > 0:23:06He did plead guilty from the outset.
0:23:08 > 0:23:11And he tried to explain what the situation was.
0:23:11 > 0:23:16His business, too much for him and his financial position he was in.
0:23:16 > 0:23:19Due to the large sums of money that passed through both Randall's
0:23:19 > 0:23:24companies off the back of this scam, that was a little hard to swallow.
0:23:24 > 0:23:27Freight liability operators' insurance can be expensive,
0:23:27 > 0:23:30but Randall was earning and had received a lot of money.
0:23:32 > 0:23:34It didn't all go in insurance.
0:23:34 > 0:23:37I don't know where it went to, only Randall knows that.
0:23:37 > 0:23:40The case proceeded to court and justice was delivered.
0:23:40 > 0:23:43He was sentenced at Wolverhampton Crown Court
0:23:43 > 0:23:46where he received 16 months imprisonment,
0:23:46 > 0:23:48suspended for two years.
0:23:48 > 0:23:50And he was ordered by the judge to be banned
0:23:50 > 0:23:53from holding a directorship for five years.
0:23:53 > 0:23:57This courier conman had been made to pay for his crimes,
0:23:57 > 0:23:59but Simon's job wasn't over yet.
0:24:01 > 0:24:04As despite the big profits Randall made by duping his staff
0:24:04 > 0:24:07to drive uninsured, they ended up unemployed.
0:24:10 > 0:24:13I'm attempting to trace where that money would have gone to.
0:24:13 > 0:24:17He owes, at the moment, nearly £350,000.
0:24:17 > 0:24:20Some of it's gone on holidays, some on living the high life.
0:24:21 > 0:24:24If you've still got the money, it's still stashed somewhere,
0:24:24 > 0:24:26I'll get it and repay the victims.
0:24:26 > 0:24:30Randall thought he could cheat the system and come out on top.
0:24:30 > 0:24:34He was gravely mistaken and now has to face the consequences.
0:24:35 > 0:24:38The question is, was it worth taking the risk?
0:24:38 > 0:24:40I would say no.
0:24:40 > 0:24:42He had a choice to make and I think he made the wrong one.
0:24:49 > 0:24:51Whether you dream of climbing Mount Everest
0:24:51 > 0:24:53or sailing the high seas,
0:24:53 > 0:24:56travel insurance gives you invaluable protection
0:24:56 > 0:24:58should anything go wrong on your big trip.
0:24:58 > 0:25:02There are, though, some sly scammers who think being half a world away
0:25:02 > 0:25:05makes it easier to make a fraudulent claim.
0:25:05 > 0:25:07But in today's global village,
0:25:07 > 0:25:10insurance cheats can be detected anywhere.
0:25:12 > 0:25:14Whatever destination you're jetting off to,
0:25:14 > 0:25:17there'll be a policy to cover your adventure.
0:25:18 > 0:25:23Mathew Crawford-Thomas is the fraud manager for Collinson Group.
0:25:25 > 0:25:28He was handed one case involving a customer who had suffered
0:25:28 > 0:25:32a potentially life-threatening incident in Nepal.
0:25:32 > 0:25:34At the initial telephone call,
0:25:34 > 0:25:37we were advised that our insured was suffering with altitude sickness
0:25:37 > 0:25:41and needed repatriating into Kathmandu, and the only way
0:25:41 > 0:25:44this could be accomplished was via helicopter rescue.
0:25:44 > 0:25:46The customer was rushed into hospital,
0:25:46 > 0:25:50but his potentially life-saving ride came at quite a cost.
0:25:52 > 0:25:53The claim was submitted for
0:25:53 > 0:25:59a helicopter rescue from Hilsa in Nepal to Kathmandu for US18,400.
0:25:59 > 0:26:01At this particular moment of the claim,
0:26:01 > 0:26:04we hadn't actually heard from the insured person
0:26:04 > 0:26:07as we were dealing directly with the rescue company.
0:26:07 > 0:26:09Not exactly loose change,
0:26:09 > 0:26:13but Matt wouldn't have to wait long to hear from the claimant.
0:26:13 > 0:26:16We received a telephone call from the insured the next day,
0:26:16 > 0:26:19after he was dropped off at the hospital, advising us that
0:26:19 > 0:26:23he wanted to leave and for us to guarantee payment to the hospital.
0:26:23 > 0:26:25A suspiciously fast recovery
0:26:25 > 0:26:30for a man requiring an emergency air evacuation just 24 hours ago.
0:27:00 > 0:27:03The claimant's medical report was received and reviewed.
0:27:03 > 0:27:07This was the first big cause for concern.
0:27:07 > 0:27:10Upon receiving the medical report from the hospital,
0:27:10 > 0:27:14it transpired that he had little or no symptoms of altitude sickness,
0:27:14 > 0:27:15therefore we started to worry
0:27:15 > 0:27:19whether or not the helicopter rescue was in fact necessary.
0:27:20 > 0:27:25By this point, the combined claim total was in excess of 20,000,
0:27:25 > 0:27:26or £15,000.
0:27:28 > 0:27:32And one party were especially keen to get paid.
0:27:32 > 0:27:34At this particular moment in time,
0:27:34 > 0:27:36not only were we dealing with the insured person,
0:27:36 > 0:27:38but we also had to deal with the helicopter rescue company
0:27:38 > 0:27:41asking for their money as well.
0:28:14 > 0:28:17And, judging by the amount of money the rescue company were asking for,
0:28:17 > 0:28:22they must have been operating their first-class service that day.
0:28:22 > 0:28:25When the bill came in at 18,400,
0:28:25 > 0:28:29we felt that this bill in itself was far too much money.
0:28:29 > 0:28:32A bill of this nature for the trip that he had received
0:28:32 > 0:28:34is circa 10,000 US.
0:28:34 > 0:28:37There was clear evidence that we needed to ask more questions
0:28:37 > 0:28:39of the helicopter rescue company.
0:28:39 > 0:28:44So they were attempting to charge nearly £15,000
0:28:44 > 0:28:47for a flight that normally costs around £7,500.
0:28:47 > 0:28:50Matt needed to get to the bottom of this
0:28:50 > 0:28:53and turned to his boots on the ground for assistance.
0:28:53 > 0:28:57We employed the services of an agent in Nepal to investigate this matter.
0:28:57 > 0:29:03And it didn't take the agent long to identify a gaping hole in the claim.
0:29:04 > 0:29:07After our agents contacted the air traffic control tower,
0:29:07 > 0:29:10they realised that no flight had taken off that day.
0:29:10 > 0:29:16With this claim crash-landing, the claimant also proved untraceable.
0:29:16 > 0:29:18Hilsa in Nepal is a restricted area
0:29:18 > 0:29:21and you need to have a permit issued.
0:29:21 > 0:29:24Upon checking the records, no permit was ever issued to our insured.
0:29:24 > 0:29:29The local investigation strongly suggested this flight of fancy
0:29:29 > 0:29:32had been concocted by the claimant and the rescue company.
0:29:34 > 0:29:39And in the absence of any payment, extreme measures were taken.
0:29:39 > 0:29:42The helicopter rescue company had actually secured
0:29:42 > 0:29:46the insured's passport as identification verification.
0:29:46 > 0:29:50However, they were refusing to give it back to the insured until
0:29:50 > 0:29:52such times as we had paid the bill.
0:29:52 > 0:29:54Armed with this information,
0:29:54 > 0:29:57the rescue company had a few facts pointed out to them.
0:30:37 > 0:30:40The rescue company are getting desperate.
0:30:40 > 0:30:42They knew the longer the claim went on, the more likely
0:30:42 > 0:30:46it would be found to be false and they'd be left empty-handed.
0:30:46 > 0:30:49Claiming to be withholding the customer's passport is an interesting move
0:30:49 > 0:30:53because the evidence suggested the rescue never even happened
0:30:53 > 0:30:56and the claimant was complicit in the deception,
0:30:56 > 0:31:00but the posturing and threats would keep on coming.
0:31:00 > 0:31:03Throughout the course of this investigation, the helicopter rescue
0:31:03 > 0:31:09company employed several tactics to attempt to make us pay the 18,400.
0:31:09 > 0:31:10Determined to keep up the pressure,
0:31:10 > 0:31:14Matt's team received another call from the rescue company.
0:31:30 > 0:31:34Unsurprisingly, Matt declined to take the company's kind offer
0:31:34 > 0:31:38and it would appear to be their last-ditch attempt at extorting a payment.
0:31:38 > 0:31:41Our agents, once armed with all the evidence,
0:31:41 > 0:31:45put it to the rescue company and their response was,
0:31:45 > 0:31:49due to a technical error, they are withdrawing their claim.
0:31:49 > 0:31:52So they'd finally thrown in the towel
0:31:52 > 0:31:56and it was down to Matt and his team's refusal to be pressurised.
0:31:56 > 0:32:00During the life cycle of this claim, the helicopter rescue company
0:32:00 > 0:32:04and the insured contacted us on numerous occasions.
0:32:04 > 0:32:08At no point did we budge with regards to guaranteeing any payment
0:32:08 > 0:32:11until a full investigation had been finished.
0:32:17 > 0:32:22Still to come, a fighter's personal injury claim is knocked back.
0:32:22 > 0:32:25Not only should he not have been fighting, but it would suggest
0:32:25 > 0:32:29that his condition and ability was sufficient to win a fight.
0:32:33 > 0:32:38"Mind your head," "Caution - wet floor," "Beware - man-eating lion."
0:32:38 > 0:32:41We have all observed public warning signs on our travels.
0:32:41 > 0:32:44Their purpose is simple - to alert you to potential danger.
0:32:44 > 0:32:49Wherever they are, all businesses have a duty to make their premises safe.
0:32:49 > 0:32:53But insurance cheats think faking or exaggerating incidents
0:32:53 > 0:32:56to fraudulently claim against them is a guaranteed earner.
0:32:56 > 0:32:59This couldn't be further from the truth.
0:33:02 > 0:33:07Whether you're shopping, eating, socialising or just out and about,
0:33:07 > 0:33:10most locations will have some level of insurance cover in place
0:33:10 > 0:33:12to protect them and you.
0:33:15 > 0:33:18Insurers Aviva have a lot of commercial clients
0:33:18 > 0:33:21and received one claim from a customer
0:33:21 > 0:33:24which they quickly passed on to solicitors BLM to investigate.
0:33:27 > 0:33:29Brian Connolly took on the case.
0:33:30 > 0:33:34And didn't waste any time sinking his teeth into this claim,
0:33:34 > 0:33:37which occurred in a busy restaurant.
0:33:40 > 0:33:42The claim itself was for personal injuries
0:33:42 > 0:33:45arising from a slip and fall down a set of stairs.
0:33:45 > 0:33:47The claimant alleged that he slipped
0:33:47 > 0:33:50on a substance which was on the second or third step.
0:33:51 > 0:33:53He claimed that as a result of that,
0:33:53 > 0:33:56he fell down the stairs, holding on to the rail,
0:33:56 > 0:33:59it couldn't hold his weight, and he fell down backwards.
0:33:59 > 0:34:03Potentially a life-threatening accident.
0:34:03 > 0:34:06The client immediately called an ambulance to assist the claimant
0:34:06 > 0:34:09as he required immediate medical attention and
0:34:09 > 0:34:10it did appear that he was injured.
0:34:10 > 0:34:13It was unknown what injuries the claimant had suffered
0:34:13 > 0:34:16and it wasn't until a few weeks after the incident
0:34:16 > 0:34:17BLM were contacted.
0:34:17 > 0:34:19When the letter of claim arrived,
0:34:19 > 0:34:23it allowed me to confirm that the claimant lived 65 miles away
0:34:23 > 0:34:26from where the accident actually happened, which I found was
0:34:26 > 0:34:29quite unusual considering he was only going there for a cup of tea.
0:34:31 > 0:34:33Must have been a decent cuppa!
0:34:33 > 0:34:36The claim totalled over £38,000,
0:34:36 > 0:34:40which was hardly surprising, given the claimant's condition.
0:34:40 > 0:34:43The claimant alleged that he sustained a number of injuries,
0:34:43 > 0:34:47to include head injuries, post-traumatic stress, headaches,
0:34:47 > 0:34:48hip injuries, back injuries,
0:34:48 > 0:34:52neck injuries and an increase in epileptic episodes.
0:34:52 > 0:34:56With the claimant's medical report reading like an A to Z of injuries,
0:34:56 > 0:34:59the alleged impact on his day-to-day life was huge.
0:35:01 > 0:35:05He had ongoing problems with his back. This was affecting his work,
0:35:05 > 0:35:08his lifestyle and on a daily and ongoing basis.
0:35:09 > 0:35:12But it was the circumstances of the accident
0:35:12 > 0:35:15which first gave cause for concern.
0:35:15 > 0:35:18What first aroused the insurer and BLM's suspicion
0:35:18 > 0:35:21was the nature of the fall down the stairwell.
0:35:21 > 0:35:25Luckily, there was a dependable eyewitness Brian could count on.
0:35:25 > 0:35:29BLM undertook deep analysis of the CCTV footage,
0:35:29 > 0:35:32not only of the accident itself but the events that took place
0:35:32 > 0:35:36both before and after the accident had happened.
0:35:36 > 0:35:40And this deep analysis would prove very revealing.
0:35:40 > 0:35:42The claimant approaches the first step,
0:35:42 > 0:35:44appears to look to the left
0:35:44 > 0:35:48and purposely place his left foot onto a substance,
0:35:48 > 0:35:50grabs onto the handrail
0:35:50 > 0:35:52and falls down the stairs.
0:35:52 > 0:35:55Anyone would think he was trying to fall down the stairs.
0:35:55 > 0:35:56Let's have another look.
0:35:59 > 0:36:01He's certainly no Hollywood stuntman.
0:36:01 > 0:36:04And the two individuals the claimant provided
0:36:04 > 0:36:06as eyewitnesses to support his claim
0:36:06 > 0:36:09didn't seem that surprised by his tea-time tumble.
0:36:10 > 0:36:12After the accident occurs,
0:36:12 > 0:36:15the two witnesses get up from where they were seated.
0:36:15 > 0:36:18They walk along, quite slowly, to the top of the stairwell
0:36:18 > 0:36:21and walk down to where the claimant has fallen.
0:36:21 > 0:36:23There was one very obvious conclusion
0:36:23 > 0:36:25to be drawn from the footage.
0:36:25 > 0:36:30In my opinion, the claimant probably did sustain some injuries, but
0:36:30 > 0:36:32this was an alleged staged accident.
0:36:34 > 0:36:36And further investigation revealed
0:36:36 > 0:36:38this wasn't a solo effort.
0:36:38 > 0:36:41The investigation revealed that the witnesses,
0:36:41 > 0:36:43as identified by the claimant,
0:36:43 > 0:36:45were actually known to the claimant.
0:36:45 > 0:36:47They were actually family members.
0:36:48 > 0:36:52And there was another telling piece of evidence established
0:36:52 > 0:36:54at the time of the accident.
0:36:54 > 0:36:58What was crucial in our case was that a waitress asked the witnesses
0:36:58 > 0:37:01whether they knew the claimant and they both said no.
0:37:03 > 0:37:05This was a good old-fashioned lie,
0:37:05 > 0:37:08which only served to strengthen Aviva's case.
0:37:08 > 0:37:12It was significant that we could identify
0:37:12 > 0:37:14the witnesses knew the claimant
0:37:14 > 0:37:17and that then we could alleged that one of the witnesses
0:37:17 > 0:37:20had purposely put a substance on the floor, causing the claimant to slip.
0:37:20 > 0:37:22A strong allegation,
0:37:22 > 0:37:26but the claimant's response supported the suspicion.
0:37:26 > 0:37:29We prepared the case very robustly
0:37:29 > 0:37:32and the morning of trial, the claimant's solicitor confirmed
0:37:32 > 0:37:35that the claimant no longer wanted to proceed with the case
0:37:35 > 0:37:38and the case was struck out and we were awarded our full costs.
0:37:40 > 0:37:43So, the claimant had opted to take another dive
0:37:43 > 0:37:45rather than see it through to court.
0:37:47 > 0:37:50BLM's online checks had proved vital
0:37:50 > 0:37:53connecting the dots of this investigation.
0:37:53 > 0:37:56The social media searches not only helped us to confirm that
0:37:56 > 0:37:59the claimant knew the witnesses, but, actually, ironically,
0:37:59 > 0:38:03one of the witnesses was wearing exactly the same outfit
0:38:03 > 0:38:05as he was on the CCTV.
0:38:05 > 0:38:08Well, when you're being captured on camera aiding an attempted fraud,
0:38:08 > 0:38:10it is important to look your best.
0:38:11 > 0:38:15It's my opinion that the claimant became aware of the fact
0:38:15 > 0:38:18that we knew that this was a staged accident
0:38:18 > 0:38:20and no longer wanted to proceed with the case.
0:38:25 > 0:38:28Day-to-day life can be dangerous, can't it?
0:38:28 > 0:38:32From busy roads to packed high streets and kamikaze cyclists,
0:38:32 > 0:38:35there's no end of potential ways to run into trouble.
0:38:35 > 0:38:38If you have an accident that wasn't your fault, then you're entitled
0:38:38 > 0:38:42to make a personal injury claim and seek fair compensation.
0:38:42 > 0:38:44But crafty insurance cheats
0:38:44 > 0:38:48don't concern themselves with minor details like who was at fault. No.
0:38:48 > 0:38:50Instead, they just make up an accident
0:38:50 > 0:38:52all in an effort to make a quick buck.
0:38:55 > 0:38:58Over three million people are injured in accidents every year.
0:38:58 > 0:39:01In the home, at work or outdoors.
0:39:02 > 0:39:05The vast majority of claims are genuine.
0:39:05 > 0:39:08The rest are dealt with by people like Scott Clayton,
0:39:08 > 0:39:10a fraud manager for insurers Zurich.
0:39:10 > 0:39:13He was asked to look over one customer's claim
0:39:13 > 0:39:15just as a matter of routine.
0:39:16 > 0:39:20We received a claim for personal injury from this claimant
0:39:20 > 0:39:22who said that whilst walking along the road,
0:39:22 > 0:39:25his foot had been caught in a grate that didn't have a lid on it.
0:39:28 > 0:39:30Probably worth around about £4,500,
0:39:30 > 0:39:33so not an inconsiderable sum of money.
0:39:33 > 0:39:36On the surface, it seemed like a fairly minor injury,
0:39:36 > 0:39:41but the grate in question had really done a number on the claimant.
0:39:41 > 0:39:44Well, the injuries that the claimant said that he'd sustained
0:39:44 > 0:39:46were a fractured ankle,
0:39:46 > 0:39:50which is pretty nasty, and also damage to his knee,
0:39:50 > 0:39:52so you can see almost how he's had his foot caught,
0:39:52 > 0:39:56twisted. Quite an unpleasant experience.
0:39:56 > 0:39:58Due to the extent of his injuries,
0:39:58 > 0:40:02the claimant alleged he couldn't work for at least six months
0:40:02 > 0:40:05and had to undergo an intensive recovery programme.
0:40:05 > 0:40:07As a result of the accident, he went through a period of
0:40:07 > 0:40:11rehabilitation and had medical treatment as well as six rounds
0:40:11 > 0:40:15of physiotherapy to get himself back on his feet as quickly as possible.
0:40:15 > 0:40:18But this claimant had more reason than most
0:40:18 > 0:40:20to need full use of his feet.
0:40:21 > 0:40:25Our suspicions were arisen when we looked at the medical report and saw
0:40:25 > 0:40:29that his occupation was a mixed martial arts instructor and fighter.
0:40:29 > 0:40:31So we would validate that just to check whether
0:40:31 > 0:40:35there was any activity in the period that he was recovering.
0:40:35 > 0:40:40And some online checks revealed some truly jaw-dropping video evidence.
0:40:40 > 0:40:41The investigation found that
0:40:41 > 0:40:44he had actually fought three months after the accident,
0:40:44 > 0:40:49so during the time that he was "recovering" from a nasty injury,
0:40:49 > 0:40:50he was physically able to engage
0:40:50 > 0:40:54in what we consider to be highly physical activity,
0:40:54 > 0:40:57and he won, which tends to suggest that he was in good condition.
0:41:00 > 0:41:02Well, he must have been in peak condition
0:41:02 > 0:41:06to survive one of the most brutal forms of professional fighting.
0:41:06 > 0:41:10The discovery left this punchy pretender's claim on the ropes.
0:41:11 > 0:41:14Not only should he not have been fighting
0:41:14 > 0:41:17because he was apparently off work with a serious injury,
0:41:17 > 0:41:22but it would suggest his condition was...and ability was sufficient
0:41:22 > 0:41:25to win a fight, therefore it cast doubt over the whole claim.
0:41:25 > 0:41:30With the claim on its last legs, in came the knockout blow.
0:41:30 > 0:41:32Our research found that not only
0:41:32 > 0:41:34had he fought three months after the accident,
0:41:34 > 0:41:37but he'd also fought again eight months after the accident,
0:41:37 > 0:41:41so our conclusion was that he was perfectly fit and well to fight,
0:41:41 > 0:41:44maintain his occupation and lifestyle, and we therefore
0:41:44 > 0:41:48consulted with his solicitors and told them what we had found.
0:41:48 > 0:41:51Given the evidence, his solicitors were none too keen
0:41:51 > 0:41:54to go another round with Zurich in pursuit of this claim.
0:41:54 > 0:41:57We heard nothing from his solicitors,
0:41:57 > 0:42:00despite a couple of reminders, and then latterly
0:42:00 > 0:42:03they told us that they had actually discontinued the claim.
0:42:03 > 0:42:06So, in other words, we had found out the truth and the claim had
0:42:06 > 0:42:08gone away as a result of it.
0:42:08 > 0:42:12The claimant severely underestimated his opponent in this case.
0:42:12 > 0:42:15He probably thought that this was a claim that we would pay and
0:42:15 > 0:42:18there wouldn't be any problems, but when you put things on the internet,
0:42:18 > 0:42:22then they're for everybody to see. And in this case, he was caught out.
0:42:22 > 0:42:25And if any potential fraudster fancies their chances with
0:42:25 > 0:42:29a false claim, they'll come up against a zero-tolerance attitude.
0:42:29 > 0:42:31We check all claims.
0:42:31 > 0:42:34We want to make sure that we're paying money out correctly
0:42:34 > 0:42:36and to people who are deserving of it.
0:42:36 > 0:42:39Where we find information that suggests a fraud,
0:42:39 > 0:42:42then we will look into it thoroughly because it's just not fair
0:42:42 > 0:42:45for people to try and exploit the system this way.
0:42:49 > 0:42:53None of us likes paying more than we have to for everyday services.
0:42:53 > 0:42:57From organised criminal gangs to exaggerated household claims,
0:42:57 > 0:43:00insurance fraud hits all of us in the pocket.
0:43:00 > 0:43:03But instead of getting away with it,
0:43:03 > 0:43:07more and more of these fraudsters have been claimed and shamed.